Residents rejoice after zoning body denies AT&T's request for a cell tower in west Mobile

Some cell towers are camouflaged as a tree, and AT&T pushed for the same type of structure near the Muir Woods subdivision in Mobile, Ala. The city's Zoning Board of Adjustments voted against the company's request on Monday, Jan. 6, 2014. (file photo)

MOBILE, Alabama – Applause filled Government Plaza's
auditorium Monday after Mobile's Board of Zoning Adjustment unanimously denied
a request from AT&T to build a cell phone tower near the Muir Woods
subdivision in west Mobile.

The vote came after residents and Councilwoman Bess Rich
urged the board to deny a variance request to allow AT&T to build a cell
tower larger than what is allowed under city ordinances.

The decision came after board members were made aware that "51
of 52" residents polled within the subdivision opposed the cell tower's
construction at 6311 Cottage Hill Road, next to a family cemetery.

"To have 51 of 52 residents oppose this is pretty strong,"
board member Sanford Davis said.

B.J. Lyon, a representative of the Muir Woods property
owners association said the residential opposition – which included about 20
people attending Monday's meeting to voice concerns about the project – helped influence
the board's decision.

After the board's vote, the residents erupted into a brief applause.

"I think it shows you that the board was impressed that 51
out of 52 residents voted to oppose it," Lyon said. "I was gratified to see the
board members really take the opinions of the residents to heart."

The variance request was pushed by New Cingular Wireless
PCS, LLC and was supported by the city's Urban Development Department after the
company committed to build a cell tower that was no larger than 135 feet in height.
The request also includes setback requirements from nearby residential
neighborhoods, and the company had planned to camouflage the structure as a
tree.

Rich, who represents the area, said the tower was "just not
right for the area" and other residents said they felt there could be better
alternatives for the tower's location.

Andy Rotenstreich, an attorney with AT&T, said the
company did "everything possible" to reduce the height and camouflage the
structure.

He said the company could not find any adequate "co-location"
sites, where AT&T could affix its system to an existing tower. Three locations were considered – Publix,
Mobile Christian Academy, and the Connie Hudson Senior Center – but they none
were able to meet AT&T's "engineering requirements."

Rotenstreich also denied that a cell tower would lead to
decreased property owners for residents, which was a concern among some of the
Muir Woods property owners.

After the vote, Rotenstreich said he will discuss the
decision with AT&T and see how to proceed.

The board's vote essentially kills the project, which was
also included on the Planning Commission's agenda.